Embryonic Stem-Cell Research

[Hypathia]

This was at another forum; thought you might find it interesting at this one too.

Conception

(I did a

[Hypathia]

Continuing:

There were a lot of very nasty replies but then there was this one:

It is said that fools rush in where angels fear to tread .... so, here I am. If I understand your question correctly, you are asking what sources in the Bible allow or prohibit abortion and the use of human embryos for medical research, and under what circumstances.

With that in mind, here is my understanding of your questions from a Jewish perspective.

Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Whether or not you understand the story of Adam and Eve is one of literal truth or religious allegory, this passage expresses an inescapable truth: women, being less physically strong, must rely on men for protection, especially during challenging times of pregnancy and childbirth.

However, Judaism also teaches that obedience to Torah (the Five Books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deutronomy) restores women to our proper status as "the crown of her husband" and "pearl of his life". (Proverbs 12:4, 31:10 commentary of R'Hirsch.)

(snip)

Breath

Genesis 2:7 then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Genesis 7:15 They went into the ark with Noah, two and two of all flesh in which there was the breath of life.

Genesis 7:22 everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died.

(snip)

Job 33:4 The spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.

In Judaism, an infant receives his/her soul at the time the infant draws its first breath - "The breath of the Almightly" describes both the soul and the beginning of an independent physical life, no longer merged with the functions of the mother.

The abortion question in Talmudic law (Jewish religious law) then revolves around the legal status of the embryo. For this the Talmud has a phrase, ubbar yerekh immo, and the fetus is deemed "a part of its mother," rather than an independent entity. However, this designation says nothing about the morality of abortion. More about that later...

Although the soul is placed within an infant with the first breath, it is vital to understand that "breath" is not the same as "soul".

This passage shows the difference:Isaiah 2: 22 Turn away from man in whose nostrils is breath,(mere physical life, as opposed to spiritual life) for of what account is he? (without knowledge of a soul).

Isaiah 42: 5 Thus says God, the LORD, who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread forth the earth and what comes from it, who gives breath ((physical life))to the people upon it AND spirit (the soul)to those who walk in it:

(snip)

Biblically speaking the issue of when real life begins is scripturally contradictive

[Kabowd]

Did you post this on the right website? Which words belong to you? Who are you debating?

[Kabowd]

By the way, there are more than 70 illnesses/diseases which are currently being treated by stem-cells harvested from non-embryonic sources. There is ZERO need for embryonic stem cells. We need to focus our attention on funding research to develop other ways (such as through umbilical chords, bone marrow and adult stem cells) so that we can improve life without having to destroy life in the process.

[Tubal-Cain]

There is ZERO need for embryonic stem cells.

Seeing as not all diseases and illnesses are curable at this point in time there is clearly a need embryonic stem cell research as that research may lead to additional cures.

We need to focus our attention on funding research to develop other ways (such as through umbilical chords, bone marrow and adult stem cells) so that we can improve life without having to destroy life in the process.

All cells are living. The issue is what life is worthy of moral consideration. Embryonic stem cells are not harvested from sentient beings. In fact, many embryos that would otherwise be destroyed can be used for this research.

[Hypathia]

By the way, there are more than 70 illnesses/diseases which are currently being treated by stem-cells harvested from non-embryonic sources. There is ZERO need for embryonic stem cells. We need to focus our attention on funding research to develop other ways (such as through umbilical chords, bone marrow and adult stem cells) so that we can improve life without having to destroy life in the process.

Neither was mine; it was two other people's posts. I believe embryonic stem-cell research should be done as well as therapeutic cloning. It is ethical, moral and there's no reason biblically to oppose it [see first post].

If you think there is ZERO need for embryonic stem cells then you should be calling for a ban on invitro-fertilization; not a ban on embryonic stem-cell research.

[CaritateDei]

There is ZERO need for embryonic stem cells.

Seeing as not all diseases and illnesses are curable at this point in time there is clearly a need embryonic stem cell research as that research may lead to additional cures.

We need to focus our attention on funding research to develop other ways (such as through umbilical chords, bone marrow and adult stem cells) so that we can improve life without having to destroy life in the process.

All cells are living. The issue is what life is worthy of moral consideration. Embryonic stem cells are not harvested from sentient beings. In fact, many embryos that would otherwise be destroyed can be used for this research.

"You have a chance to cure all the world's diseases, but to do so, you must kill one innocent child. Could you kill that child, Stan?"

"No."

"You disappoint me. It's for the greater good."

"Well what about 10 innocents."

"Now you're gettin' it. What about 10? How about a hundred? How about a THOUSAND?!"

That's what all this sounds like. The end never justifies the means, folks. We should know better than that.

[apothanein kerdos]

The problem with proponents of Embryonic stem-cell research is they have latched onto a Utilitarian philosophy when approaching this issue.

"Sure, you have to kill a few babies to do this, but look at all the good that could come from this. If the death of one baby can save the lives of thousands, then it's justified and moral."

This, of course, is wrong. When applied to other circumstances it never works. Performing medical experiments on humans that are painful and lead to death are banned. The reason is it is considered unethical - even though the knowledge gained would benefit millions.

All cells are living. The issue is what life is worthy of moral consideration. Embryonic stem cells are not harvested from sentient beings. In fact, many embryos that would otherwise be destroyed can be used for this research.

You're assuming that these "beings" are just cells. They're humans.

It sure is a sad day when we want to harvest children for our own advancement.

[Tubal-Cain]

"You have a chance to cure all the world's diseases, but to do so, you must kill one innocent child. Could you kill that child, Stan?"

"No."

"You disappoint me. It's for the greater good."

"Well what about 10 innocents."

"Now you're gettin' it. What about 10? How about a hundred? How about a THOUSAND?!"

That's what all this sounds like. The end never justifies the means, folks. We should know better than that.

The problem with your analogy is that an innocent child is a sentient being while an embryo is not. Those who oppose embryonic stem cell research need to explain why an embryo is deserving of moral consideration. While trying to answer that question I would like them to explain: (1) why human sperm and egg cells do/don't deserve moral consideration; (2) why animal embryos do/don't deserve moral consideration; and (3) why plants do/don't deserve moral consideration. The last three questions are asked to ultimately answer the question: when does an entity (human or otherwise) deserve moral consideration? That is the root question of this debate.

[Tubal-Cain]

The problem with proponents of Embryonic stem-cell research is they have latched onto a Utilitarian philosophy when approaching this issue.

I'm guilty of using utilitarian philosophy but not in the sense you lay out when you say: "Sure, you have to kill a few babies to do this, but look at all the good that could come from this. If the death of one baby can save the lives of thousands, then it's justified and moral." I don't propose killing any babies, I propose killing embryos.

This, of course, is wrong. When applied to other circumstances it never works. Performing medical experiments on humans that are painful and lead to death are banned. The reason is it is considered unethical - even though the knowledge gained would benefit millions.

The problem with this analogy is that embryos don't feel pain nor are they self-aware in the least.

You're assuming that these "beings" are just cells. They're humans.

It sure is a sad day when we want to harvest children for our own advancement.

Embryos are human but it is dishonest to equate them with children. Children are self-aware and have feelings and desires. Embryos have none of those things.